Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Omegaman

Posted 21 June 2014 - 03:25 AM

also, I recall several times when wmd were found and facilities to manufacture them. I have long since forgotten, or failed to record those sources, but just becuase the main stream media failed to report it, does not mean it was not on the news wires. It was not a lack of evidence for wmd, it was a lack of admitting it when pretending they did not exist would make bush look bad. Never-the-less, I do not think Bush was a great president, but for other reasons. As far as the whole Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/terrorism thing goes, I think he was actually the right guy, in the right place, at the right time, and I think that history will treat him more kindly than many in this generation have.

So how does this not vindicate Bush? The article admits that there was a chemical weapons facility there.

The claim that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to world security was the basis for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Before the invastion, the weapons at Muthanna had been found by UN inspectors but were dismantled with chemical stocks militarily useless and closed off in bunkers.

MorningGlory

Posted 21 June 2014 - 09:52 AM

MorningGlory

Royal Member

Royal Member

32,755 posts

This neither vindicates GWB nor does it prove him wrong The world knew Saddam had chemical weapons facilities during the first Gulf war. The problem is that these things were never rendered unusable. Our involvement in Iraq was a mistake we will be dealing with for decades to come. That being said, I don't want to see one more American life (or those of our allies) wasted on that miserable country. Not even sure if it can be called that after talking to people who have been there. It was never worth the efforts made by so many, or the trillion dollars we threw into that pit and, IMO, they will NEVER be a civilized, cohesive society.

LadyC

Posted 21 June 2014 - 11:06 AM

LadyC

Royal Member

Royal Member

15,215 posts

a mistake that was never worth the effort? tell that to my daughter. tell that to my son-in-law. tell that to countless other military people who are proud of the work they accomplished in iraq. really MG, i wish you would choose your words more carefully.

Tolken

Posted 21 June 2014 - 02:21 PM

Tolken

Advanced Member

Advanced Member

322 posts

LadyC - a mistake that was never worth the effort? tell that to my daughter. tell that to my son-in-law. tell that to countless other military people who are proud of the work they accomplished in iraq. really MG, i wish you would choose your words more carefully.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the military did not serve honorably but rather that the motivation for our involvement with Iraq was based on False information and an unnecessary rush to war. Perhaps that is why so many compare it to Viet Nam. There were no WMDs found, Iraq had no involvement with 9/11, and the possibility of what is now taking place was strongly suggested many years ago ... the only people that made out in this was Cheney's old company Halliburton.

MorningGlory

Posted 21 June 2014 - 02:53 PM

MorningGlory

Royal Member

Royal Member

32,755 posts

a mistake that was never worth the effort? tell that to my daughter. tell that to my son-in-law. tell that to countless other military people who are proud of the work they accomplished in iraq. really MG, i wish you would choose your words more carefully.

I DID choose my words carefully, L.C. Yes, our military did a Herculean job in Iraq and they're all heroes for making those efforts. The fact that we should never have sent them there is not a reflection on them but on our government. What I'm saying is that the country of Iraq is not worth it. They hated us before 2003 and they hate us now. I don't want any more young men or women to be killed or maimed for people like that. Let them fight their own sectarian, 7th century battles. That's what they're going to do anyway.

So surely, if you believed this about Bush, you are actively and repeatedly proclaiming the same thing about our current sitting "president" as often as you can. He increased our presence in Afghanistan, after emphatically stating, pre-election that he would remove us from Afghanistan. He has started, at last count, 5 proxy wars in various Middle East countries in an effort to remove moderate governments and replace them with militant Islamic ones, and he is now planning to do the same thing in Iraq. Will you protest Obama involving us, again, in Iraq as virulently as you have above with Bush? Have you spoken out about Benghazi? Fast & Furious? The IRS and NSA scandals? Or is your political outrage selective? Because it is blatantly obvious that people with leanings to The Left are always critical of Bush, but totally silent when Obama does the exact same thing, and, in many cases, things that are 4 times as bad. War was bad, under Bush, but it is cool under Obama, and no one on the Left ever even mentions it.

The concept of the thread is pretty simple, but you seem to have missed it. The MSM, and Talking Heads on the Left said that there were NO WMD's in Iraq, and that there never had been. If you will remember, G.W. Bush entering Iraq a second time was NOT because he was, initially, going in to "get Saddam," or "make it a Democracy." He went into Iraq, backed by Congress, because Hussein steadfastly refused to allow UN inspectors to enter the country and inspect the country for WMD's, and facilities which could produce them. And Sadam doing so was in direct violation of the treaty he signed at the end of the Gulf War. The WMD's were not there an longer when we went in the second time, because Sadam had shipped them to places like Syria to hide them. Those WMD's were part of the stash that Bashar al-Assad used on his own people in Syria. You know, that little incident that Obama attempted to use to go in and bomb Syria, and start another proxy war until Putin spanked him and sent him to the corner. And if chemical weapons plants like the one that ISIS has taken over were destroyed and incapable of manufacturing anything, there would be no reason for them to seize them in the first place. If one wants to manufacture cars, one does not seize the old Packard plant in Detroit.

Cobalt1959

Posted 23 June 2014 - 04:44 PM

Cobalt1959

Royal Member

Royal Member

7,520 posts

I wish we could do more for the Christians that are stuck in the middle of all this.

Well, in Syria, Obama and his administration are doing something to help. He is syphoning money and covert training to the rebel groups like Al Qaeda so that they can kill even more Christians and other non-combatants. This makes perfect sense since we are suppossedly fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but giving them money in Syria. And we were giving them arms in Libya. That's what Benghazi was all about.

Cobalt1959

Posted 23 June 2014 - 04:47 PM

Cobalt1959

Royal Member

Royal Member

7,520 posts

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that the military did not serve honorably but rather that the motivation for our involvement with Iraq was based on False information and an unnecessary rush to war. Perhaps that is why so many compare it to Viet Nam. There were no WMDs found, Iraq had no involvement with 9/11, and the possibility of what is now taking place was strongly suggested many years ago ... the only people that made out in this was Cheney's old company Halliburton.

Cobalt1959

Posted 23 June 2014 - 08:58 PM

Cobalt1959 - That's just a parrot statement of what other people have said.

So we disagree on several points, beyond that I try my best not to respond to ignorant remarks.

The fact that you cannot adequately reply to either post means you have nothing of substance to reply with. This is S.O.P. for you when the error of your position is exposed.

There are three main "reasons" always forwarded from those on the left for our second involvement in Iraq:

1. To procure a secure supply of oil.

2. For G. W. Bush to "finish" what his father started.

3. To somehow make companies like Haliburton more money, i.e. crony capitalism.

And invariably, people start calling Bush an evil president and say he should be brought up on war crimes. But there are a couple of problems, and when people are simply pushing the usual leftist rhetoric that they continually repeat ad nauseum on this subject because they have no facts and can't use logic, or are simply repeating something they heard one of their friends, family, politician or internet forum person said, which is proven false, they either disengage, or vilify the people delivering the points they don't like, because they have no way to refute them. So they attempt to denigrate the person, as you did above. It may make you think you have won something, but it does nothing in the public venue to side-step a credible and fact-based counter to your non-fact based statement about Haliburton.

Yes, contracting outfits benefit, financially from war. That is the outcome of the war, not the impetus to begin the engagement in the first place. I assume with your attitude towards Bush you would be one of the ones calling him a war criminal, but if the fact that Congress approved the second foray into Iraq were brought into the equation your statement would be rendered moot and you would distance yourself from it.

As for crony capitalism, i.e. I hope you condemn crony capitalism as strenuously when it involves the present administration including Obama (Solandra and other "Green" industry "incentives") and Harry Reid's private little BLM war with rancher Bundy so he could acquire the land for his son's China Solar Farm deal. Are these actions bad in all cases, or just when Bush supposedly did it?

I noticed that you either could not or would not deal with the fact that we re-entered Iraq because of Saddam Husseins complete failure to allow UN inspectors into the country to check on the WMD's.

I noticed you failed to deal with Obama's escalation in Afghanistan and his endless string of proxy wars. I will ask again. Is this also wrong and are you actively condemning it? Because if you are not, then your internal value system is inconsistent.

Again, why would ISIS forces seize a chemical weapons plant if it was destroyed and unable to produce anything?

Tolken

Posted 24 June 2014 - 07:40 AM

Cobalt1959 - The fact that you cannot adequately reply to either post means you have nothing of substance to reply with. This is S.O.P. for you when the error of your position is exposed.

Perhaps I neither have the time nor patience to entertain your biased and ill-informed position. At least be honest as your rant was simply an excuse to spew your hatred of Obama, and to a degree that is perfectly understandable. You simply choose to ignore the dysfunctional and impotent republican party in all of the past and current mess.

Quote - There are three main "reasons" always forwarded from those on the left for our second involvement in Iraq:

Quote - I assume with your attitude towards Bush you would be one of the ones calling him a war criminal.

You definitely have a major problem with assumptions, another in your fallacious remarks.

“Paul Wolfowitz, the influential United States deputy secretary of defense, has acknowledged that the evidence used to justify the war was “murky” and now says that weapons of mass destruction weren’t the crucial issue anyway (see the book by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: the uses of propaganda in Bush’s war on Iraq”

Quote - As for crony capitalism, i.e. I hope you condemn crony capitalism as strenuously when it involves the present administration including Obama (Solandra and other "Green" industry "incentives") and Harry Reid's private little BLM war with rancher Bundy so he could acquire the land for his son's China Solar Farm deal. Are these actions bad in all cases, or just when Bush supposedly did it?

And this rant has exactly what to do with Iraq?

Quote - I noticed that you either could not or would not deal with the fact that we re-entered Iraq because of Saddam Husseins complete failure to allow UN inspectors into the country to check on the WMD's.

What WMDs?

“During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the "proactive" but not always "immediate" cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[5] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.”

Quote - I noticed you failed to deal with Obama's escalation in Afghanistan and his endless string of proxy wars. I will ask again. Is this also wrong and are you actively condemning it? Because if you are not, then your internal value system is inconsistent.

I notice that you continue to try and steer the conversation away from the OP... Start a new thread and perhaps someone will entertain your “proxy wars” and other remarks.

Quote - Again, why would ISIS forces seize a chemical weapons plant if it was destroyed and unable to produce anything?

Perhaps it would be wise to read up on that particular issue...I did provide a link but there are myriad more stating the same conclusions.

Further it is rather foolish to assert “The fact that you cannot adequately reply to either post means you have nothing of substance to reply with. This is S.O.P. for you when the error of your position is exposed.” If the S.O. P. is referring to our Genesis discussion...I noticed your lack of involvement with the Mediate Creation thread. It may come as a surprise but people do disagree and your arrogant and mocking remarks are really unnecessary. It is also hay season here and time is of the essence...so that one should refrain from overreaching as to the why of one’s lack of response.

Qnts2

Posted 24 June 2014 - 09:53 AM

Qnts2

Senior Member

Senior Member

1,720 posts

While politics argued the lack of existence of WMDs to show that Bush engaged in an invalid war, they have neglected another reason put forward for the war since that one is impossible to come against.

Saddam Hussein experimented with and used gas against the Kurds who were also residents of Iraq. There were two major attacks against the Kurds making use of nationally outlawed chemical weapons. One attack alone killed between 3000 to 5000 Kurds, and injured 10,000 others. Today, there are still people being treated for the lasting effects, as well as miscarriages 14 times higher then normal, increased birth defects, cancers, etc. The chemical contaminated the water and the soil. This has been declared by a court system, an attempt at genocide. Saddam Hussein was condemned to death for these chemical attacks.

So, for all of the ins and outs of the WMD, which became the point of political posturing, the issue which convicted Hussein was the illegal use of chemical weapons, attempted genocide, and crimes against humanity. That did require military action to stop Hussein. He did have chemical weapons and had illegally used them, maiming thousands of Kurds, with the effects which will carry forward for generations.